The Evolution of Pain

Assessment Tools

Debra Drew, MS, ACNS-BC (Retired),

RN-BC (Retired), AP-PMN

June 13, 2018

Conflict of Interest Statement

• Co-author:

Topham, D. & Drew D. (2017) Quality improvement project: Replacing the Numeric Rating Scale with a Clinically Aligned Pain Assessment (CAPA©) tool. Pain Management Nursing, 18 (6), 363-371.

• No other conflict of interest in regards to the content of this presentation.

Educational Objectives

• At the conclusion of this activity participants should be able to:

• List one advantage and disadvantage of simple pain intensityscales

• List two common features of tools that include measuresbeyond simple pain intensity

• Describe how complete pain assessments can guide clinicaldecision-making

The Importance of Assessment in the

Management of Pain

Accurate pain assessment is necessary for effective clinical care. (Gordon, 2015)

American Nurses Association (ANA) 2018

�Position paper entitled:

“The Ethical Responsibility to Manage Pain and the Suffering it Causes”

• “Nurses have an ethical responsibility to relieve pain and the suffering causes.”

• “Nurses should provide individualized nursing interventions.”

• “The nursing process should guide the nurse’s action to improve pain management.”

If one of the legs is broken-

the chair cannot stand

• Assessment is part of the nursing process.

• Assessment, diagnosis, planning, implementation

or

• Assessment, planning, implementation, evaluation

Regulatory Standards

• New Joint Commission Standards (2018)

Provision of Care, Treatment, and Services (PC)

Provision of Care, Treatment, and Services (PC)

The hospital assesses and manages the patient’s

pain and minimizes the risks associated with

treatment.

• The hospital monitors patients identified as being high risk for adverse outcomes related to opioid treatment.

• The hospital reassesses and responds to the patient’s pain through the following:

• Evaluation and documentation of response(s) to pain intervention(s)

• Progress toward pain management goals including functional ability (for example, ability to take a deep breath, turn in bed, walk with improved pain control)

• Side effects of treatment

• Risk factors for adverse events caused by the treatment

Provision of Care, Treatment, and Services (PC)

The hospital assesses and manages the patient’s pain

and minimizes the risks associated with treatment.

• The hospital involves patients in the pain management treatment planning process through the following:

• Developing realistic expectations and measurable goals that are understood by the patient for the degree, duration, and reduction of pain

• Discussing the objectives used to evaluate treatment progress (for example, relief of pain and improved physical and psychosocial function)

• Providing education on pain management, treatment options, and safe use of opioid and nonopioid medications when prescribed

Provision of Care, Treatment, and Services (PC)

The hospital assesses and manages the patient’s pain

and minimizes the risks associated with treatment.

• The hospital has defined criteria to screen, assess, and reassess painthat are consistent with the patient’s age, condition, and ability tounderstand.

• The hospital screens patients for pain during emergency departmentvisits and at the time of admission.

• The hospital treats the patient’s pain or refers the patient fortreatment.

• The hospital develops a pain treatment plan based on evidence-basedpractices and the patient’s clinical condition, past medical history, andpain management goals.

History of Pain Assessment Tools

• 1968 : “Pain is whatever the experiencing person says it is, existing whenever he says it does.” (McCaffery)

• 1970s :Development of self-reported pain intensity tools

• Numerical Scale 0-5 tied to “Nil, Mild, Moderate, Severe & Very Severe” (Lee et al,1973)

• Visual Analog Scale (Huskisson, 1974)

• McGill Pain Questionnaire (Melzack, 1975)

Behavioral/Observation Tools

• 1990’s-early 2000’s saw development of observational tools for patients who could not self-report their pain experience. E.g.

• 1993- CHEOPS (Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale)

• 1997- FLACC (Faces, legs, activity, cry, consolability)

• 2003- PAINAD (Pain assessment in Advanced Dementia)

Self-Reported Pain Intensity Tools

• Strengths:

• Valid and reliable for acute pain (Page et al, 2012)

• Simple and easy to use

• Allow for quick assessment, reassessment and can help guide clinical decision-making

• Weaknesses

• Simple tools measure only pain intensity

• Doesn’t do justice to complexity of patient pain experience

Multidimensional Self-Report Tools

• McGill Pain Questionnaire (1975)

• Advantages: Valid and reliable, contains a body diagram, may be helpful with multi-morbidity and pain arising form multiple causes.

• Disadvantages: Long form takes 30 minutes to complete and requires literacy

• Chronic Pain Grade Scale

• Advantages: measures impact overtime of persistent pain on daily, social, and work activities

• Disadvantages: Complex and less useful for assessment of pain at point of care

Tide of Thought Shifting

• Reliance on one dimensional scales to guide treatment has been linkedto serious adverse events: Incidences of opioid over-sedationincreased in hospital stays (Pasero et al, 2016)

• Documentation of pain is treated as a regulatory nuisance and clinicaldecision making is not linked to assessment data.

• Pain is complex and assessment tools need to reflect that complexity,yet be pragmatic in clinical use. (Gordon, DB. ,2015)

• Pain assessment is a complex communication process between thepatient and clinician.

Are Pain Ratings Irrelevant?

• Speaker noted that fellow pain and palliative care colleagues didn’t alwaysask about pain intensity using the numeric scale.

• In 2015, Short Survey of APS members, N=41, found pain clinicians do notroutinely use pain intensity ratings as part of the pain assessment duringclinical practice. (Backonja M & Farrar JT. , 2015)

• Dowding et al (2016) reported that nurses tended not to use a painassessment tool to aid their decision making and appeared to distrust thescores. They preferred to rely on common sense and their own experiencesto assess a patient’s pain.

What is a simple pain intensity rating (e.g.

NRS) really measuring?

• When used by patients with chronic/persistent pain: is thepatient really describing something other than pain intensity?

• “Suffering” or “distress” ?

• What happens when clinicians use different anchors for severepain?

• 10= “Worst pain you’ve ever experienced” vs

• 10= “Worst pain imaginable”

Some patients modulate pain

reports and behaviors based

on their perception of what’s

in their best interest.Schiavenato, M & Craig KD. (2010) Clin J Pain. 26(8);667-676.

Multidimensional Aspects of Pain Assessment

Assessment is part of a continuous process encompassing multidimensional factors. (Finka, 2015)• Physiological/sensory factors

• Location

• Intensity

• Duration

• Quality

• Aggravating and relieving factors

• Associative factors

• Affect

• Cognition

• Sociocultural factors

• Environmental factors

• Patient goal

• Pertinent medical history

Pain Assessment as a Social TransactionSchiavenato, M & Craig KD. (2010) Clin J Pain. 26(8);667-676.

• Problem with self-report using a one-dimensional scale:

• Pain is a multi-dimensional complex experience

• Numeric scale difficult for some to use

• NRS requires linguistic and social skills: problematic with some of most vulnerable populations

• Patients modulate pain behaviors and self-report based on their perception of what’s in their best interest

Pain Assessment as a Social Transaction Schiavenato, M & Craig KD. (2010) Clin J Pain. 26(8);667-676.

Biological

Sociocultural

Developmental/Psychological

Experience/Empathy

Contextual/Situational

Experience

(Patient Meaning)

Expression Assessment

Judgment

(Clinician Meaning)

Contributing Factors

Assessment Process Patient Clinician

Pain

StimulusInter-

vention

Examples of Contributing Factors

in Pain AssessmentBiologic Sociocultural Developmental-

Psychological

Experience/

Empathy

Contextual/

Situational

Patient Disease,

clinical

condition,

drug

influences

Ethnicity, sex,

access to

healthcare,

cultural

origin

Age, stress, drug

addiction,

interpersonal

skills, fear

Previous

experience

of pain

Language,

fear/stress,

Similarity to

clinician,

socioeconomic

status

Clinician Biologic

disposition,

stress

reactivity

Pt.

preferences

or biases,

age, sex,

education,

ethnic

background

Views on pain,

trust/suspicion,

Interpersonal

skills, critical

evaluation of

pain report

Knowledge,

clinical

competence,

empathy,

institutional

insensitivity

Workload,

interdisciplinary

communication,

facility resources

Schiavenato, M & Craig KD. (2010) Clin J Pain. 26(8);667-676

Tools Evolving and Expanding

• “Evaluation of functional outcomes provides a better indicationof the effectiveness of pain management strategies than painintensity ratings.” (Miaskowski, 2010, p. 27.)

Functional Pain Scale (FPS)Gloth et al (2001)

0 2 4 6 8 10

No Pain Tolerable

activities not

prevented

Tolerable

prevents some

active activities

Intolerable

prevents many

active, (not

passive)

activities

Intolerable

prevents all

active and

many passive

activities

Intolerable

incapacitated,

unable to do

anything or

speak due to

pain

Active activities: Usual activities or those requiring effort (turning, walking, etc)

Passive activities: talking on phone, watching TV, reading

FPS best used for older adults who are unable to self-report pain level.

DVPRS

(Defense and Veterans Pain Rating Scale)

• 2008, Army Surgeon General charged 22 member pain management task force to examine pain assessment practices across military and Veterans Hospital settings

• 2010 report

• NRS (Numerical rating scale) was inconsistently used, lacked standardized word anchors, provided minimal guidance in clinical care

• DVPRS tool developed: combines NRS, colors, FACES, words plus additional questions on general activity, sleep, mood and level of stress.

• “Unlike the simple numeric scale, the DVPRS scale and supplemental questions encourage meaningful clinician–patient discussions about pain and its several dimensions and comorbidities, providing information that is needed to guide further clinical evaluation and to establish personalized biopsychosocial treatment plans with the patient .” (Buckenmaier et al, 2013, p.118)

Permission is granted for clinicians and researchers to freely use the Defense and Veterans Pain Rating Scale (DVPRS) as is, without alteration.

CAPA® (Clinically Aligned Pain Assessment)

Tool

• University of Utah – 2012 Pilot Project

• CAPA© developed to replace conventional numeric rating scale(NRS; 0-10 scale)

• Press Ganey© scores increased from 18th to 95th percentile

• 55% patients preferred CAPA ©

• Nurses preferred CAPA © 3:1 over NRS

From, Donaldson & Chapman, 2013.

Clinically Aligned Pain Assessment (CAPA)“Pain is More Than Just a Number” ©

• Evaluates

• intensity of pain

• effect of pain on functionality

• effect of pain on sleep

• efficacy of therapy

• progress toward comfort

• Engages patient and clinician in a briefconversation about pain resulting incoded evaluation

From, Donaldson & Chapman, 2013.

CAPA© Tool (modified by U of MN with permission; original in blue)

The conversation leads to documentation- not the other way around.

Question Response

Comfort •Intolerable

•Tolerable with discomfort

•Comfortably manageable

•Negligible pain

Change in Pain •Getting worse

•About the same

•Getting better

Pain Control •Inadequate pain control Inadequate pain control

•Partially effective Effective, just about right

•Fully effective Would like to reduce medication (why?)

Functioning •Can’t do anything because of pain

•Pain keeps me from doing most of what I need to do

•Can do most things, but pain gets in the way of some

•Can do everything I need to

Sleep •Awake with pain most of night

•Awake with occasional pain

•Normal Sleep

From, Donaldson & Chapman, 2013.

Anecdotes from U. of MN Experience

Patient perspective: “Makes me feel like the nurses care more about my pain.”

Nurses perspective:

• “It makes sense.”

• Many had been frustrated by numeric scale and liked thechange. “I hated that 0-10 scale.”

Nurse Survey At U. of MN1 med-surg unit (N=21, 67% return)

80% satisfied or very satisfied with implementation

80% felt communication with patients improved with CAPA ©

71% satisfied with rationale for change

66% preferred CAPA© over NRS

47% believe patients have somewhat better pain management

with CAPA ©

Thanks to Emily Drobinski, Carrie Hallstrom, Kelly Pavlicek, Mary Sylvestre,

Heather White , Clare Zielinski: Unit 8A, UMMC

Quarterly Press Ganey© Scores

Pre and Post CAPA © Implementation at U. of MN

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

Q2 12 Q3 12 Q4 12 Q1 13 Q2 13 Q3 13 Q4 13 Q1 14 Q2 14 Q3 14 Q4 14 Q1 15 Q2 15 Q3 15 Q4 15

Overall Pain Management Pain Well Controlled Staff Did Everything

Capa Beings 12/13 Change in Pain Service

Regulatory Responses to CAPA Tool

• U of MN passed two visits from TJC and CMS since incorporatingthis tool

• Not necessary to tie dosing of opioids to pain intensity scores(Pasero, et al, 2016)

• Can be dangerous to dose opioids to pain intensity alone

Tying the Use of New Pain Tools to

Guide Clinical Decision Making

Sense-Making

• Existing concepts of pain recognition, assessment and managementdo not fully explain how the decision process occurs in clinicalpractice.

• Dowding, et al , (2015) research indicates that pain recognition,assessment and management is not an individual cognitive activity; itis carried out by groups of individuals over time and within a specificorganizational culture or climate, which influences both health careprofessional and patient behavior.

• Their proposed model based on “sense-making” recognizes thesalience of individual cognition and acknowledging that decisions areconstructed through social interaction and organizational context

Assessment as A Clinical Art

“It remains a clinical art to combine patient’s reports, behavioral observation, and physiologic measurement with the history, physical exam, laboratory information and overall clinical context in guiding clinical judgments and therapeutic interventions.”

(Berde & McGrath, 2009) as quoted by von Baeyer, C. (2012) What’s the score in

pain assessment? MJA, 196 (6), 379.

In Summary

• There is growing recognition that pain intensity alone is NOT a complete assessment of a patient’s pain experience.

• Reliance on pain intensity scores to guide prescribing has led to negative outcomes.

• Assessment is an ongoing process and a social interaction between patient and clinician.

• Inclusion of pain’s effect on functionality and sleep will help set reasonable goals and guide clinical decision making in pain management.

• Nurses, and all clinicians, must hone the art of assessment in order to guide clinical decisions which result in optimal pain management for all patients.

ReferencesANA (American Nurses Association) (2018) The ethical responsibility of manage pain and the suffering it

causes. Position paper. Retrieved: June 10, 2018 at www.nursingworld.org/~495e9b/globalassets/docs/ana/ethics/theethicalresponsibilitytomanagepainandthesufferingitcauses2018.pdf

Backonja M., & Farrar J.T. (2015) Are pain ratings irrelevant? Pain Medicine, 16(7): 1247-1250.

Berde, C. & McGrath, P. (2009) Pain measurement and Beechers challenge: 50 years later. Anesthesiol, 111, 473-474.

Buckenmaier, C.C., Galloway, K.T., Polomano, R.C., McDuffie, M., Kwon, N., Gallagher, R.M. (2013) Preliminary validation of the Defense and Veterans Pain Rating Scale (DVPRS) in a military population. Pain Medicine, 14(1), 110-123.

Donaldson, G., & Chapman, C.R. (2013) Pain is more than just a number. University of Utah Health Care/Department of Anesthesiology

Dowding, D., Lichtner, V., Allcock, N., Briggs, M., Keady, J.K., Lasrado, R., Sampson, E.L., Swarbrick, C., & Closs, S. J. (2016) Using sense-making theory to aid understanding of the recognition, assessment and management of pain in patients with dementia in acute hospital settings. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 53, 152-162.

Finka, R.M., Gates, R.A., & Montgomery, R.K. (2015) Physical aspects of care: pain and gastrointestinal symptoms. In J. Paice & B. Ferrell (Eds.) HPNA Palliative Nursing Manuals. New York: Oxford University Press.

ReferencesGloth, F., Scheve, A.A., Stober, C.V., Chow, S., Prosser, J. (2001) The Functional Pain Scale: reliability,

validity and responsiveness in an elderly population. Journal of the American Medical Directors 2 (3): 110-114.

Gordon, D. B. (2015) Acute pain assessment tools: let us move beyond simple pain ratings. Current Opinion in Anesthesiology, 28 (5), 565-569.

Manworren, R.C.E. (2015) Multimodal pain management and the future of a personalized medicine approach to pain. AORN Journal, 101 (3), 308-314.

Page, M. G., Katz, J., Stinson, J., Isaac, L., Martin-Pichora, A.L., & Campbell, F. (2012) Validation of the numerical rating scale for pain intensity and unpleasantness in pediatric acute postoperative pain: Sensitivity to change over time. The Journal of Pain, 13 (4), 359-369.

Pasero, C., Quinlan-Colwell, A., Rae, D., Broglio, K., Drew, D. (2016) American Society for Pain Management Nursing Position Statement: Prescribing and administering opioid doses based solely on pain intensity. Journal of Pain Management Nursing, 17 (3), 170-180.

Schiavenato, M & Craig KD. (2010) Clin J Pain. 26(8);667-676.

Topham, D. & Drew, D. (2017) Quality improvement project: Replacing the numeric rating scale with a Clinically Aligned Pain Assessment (CAPA©) tool. Pain Management Nursing, 18 (6), 363-371.

Tsai, I-P., Jeong, S.Y-S., Hunter, S. (2018) Pain assessment and management for older patients with dementia in hospitals: An integrative literature review. Pain Management Nursing , 19 (1), 54-71.

von Baeyer, C. (2012) What’s the score in pain assessment? MJA, 196 (6), 379.

42

American Academy of Family Physicians American Psychiatric Association

American Academy of Neurology American Society of Addiction Medicine

Addiction Technology Transfer Center American Society of Pain Management

Nursing

American Academy of Pain Medicine Association for Medical Education and

Research in Substance Abuse

American Academy of Pediatrics International Nurses Society on Addictions

American College of Emergency Physicians American Psychiatric Nurses Association

American College of Physicians National Association of Community Health

Centers

American Dental Association National Association of Drug Court

Professionals

American Medical Association Southeastern Consortium for Substance

Abuse Training

American Osteopathic Academy of Addiction

Medicine

PCSS is a collaborative effort led by the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry (AAAP) in partnership with:

43

Educate. Train. Mentor

www.pcssNOW.org

pcss@aaap.org

@PCSSProjects

www.facebook.com/pcssprojects/

Funding for this initiative was made possible (in part) by grant nos. 5U79TI026556-02 and 3U79TI026556-02S1 from SAMHSA. The views expressed in written conference materials or publications and by speakers and moderators do not necessarily reflect the official policies of the Department of Health

and Human Services; nor does mention of trade names, commercial practices, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.